Topic: Share Liverpool fc Do we Know if they are ready to make a bid?

[xerxes1]

The basic idea is a share for £5K but 10 people could "chip in" £500 each for a share.  The concept was one person can have one voting share but the revised proposal (last year) could see wealthy individuals buying non voting shares which have a small return of 2%.  Shares cannot be traded so no-one could buy shares to gain control of the club.

Which is, I guess, why there hasn't exactly been a rush.....................

[jwilgar]

Which is, I guess, why there hasn't exactly been a rush.....................

To be fair, they haven't actually pushed the button on getting the money in.  Its a bit Catch 22, can't (afford) to call in the funds until they have the sight of a realistic price/willing seller, can't make a serious offer with no real funds behind them.  I suspect it would take hundreds of thousands of £'s to get all the money in so I think they have to have a good indication from the sellers that they could have common ground on the price.  Maybe these guys are playing to the gallery but for me there is no other show in town, maybe some Chinese prick who wants to pull on the shirt himself.......

[xerxes1]

To be fair, they haven't actually pushed the button on getting the money in.  Its a bit Catch 22, can't (afford) to call in the funds until they have the sight of a realistic price/willing seller, can't make a serious offer with no real funds behind them. 

I agree. The Club cannot be expected to negotiate with parties who cannot prove they have the cash, and perform on a contract. So it is difficult to see how any fan proposition can secure "face time".

[majestic_11]

The basic idea is a share for £5K but 10 people could "chip in" £500 each for a share.  The concept was one person can have one voting share but the revised proposal (last year) could see wealthy individuals buying non voting shares which have a small return of 2%.  Shares cannot be traded so no-one could buy shares to gain control of the club.

thanks for that mate!

why couldn't sharelfc create a a trust fund though? Where all donations were welcome, but noone gets anything for there return! I would be happy to invest say £300 towards the good of the club and not expect anything back as long as we had a key figure on the board to represent the fund.

The thing i link to but its nothing alike is  'children in need' where people make there donations and the grand total goes to the choosen charitys, which in our case would represnt our bid.

[Red Genius]

I think we need to be brainstorming ideas to make this work. 

How about we keep the idea of one person, one share.  But give different voting rights to the shares.

Let's say:

£1000 - 1 vote
£5000 - 7 vote
£20,000  -  35 votes
£50,000 -   100 votes
£100,000  - 250 votes
£1,000,000  - 3000 votes

So people can invest the amount they see fit, and be rewarded in votes.  But no-one can get lots of shares and get a controlling interest.

Jack - i've spent much of time here reading posts, and yours have generally been exceptionally informative.

However, it doesn't matter right now how you propose an 'investment / takeover' - the most essential figure that is required is the 'total number of persons prepared to buy into this idea' which amounts to either tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands.

Personally i never can see this happening, just over 5k fans have been prepared to pay £10 for SOS membership. Irrespective of whether you buy into SOS or Share Liverpool, its a numbers game... we would require an enormous amount of support to achieve these goals.

My personal opinion would be to achieve a 'snow ball effect' of investment requires one hell of a head start with regards to investment, if there was already £50m in the tank then people would buy into the concept and want to see it through. Where in my opinion  Share Liverpool have failed is to acquire backing from concrete investors, ones that would propel the campaign forward very quickly... rich fans prepared to donate / invest large sums to get it moving.

I re-iterate, we will never have 50,000+ fans invest £5k, we need a handful of rich investors to inspire supporters that it 'can' be achievable and get the ball rolling.

[Red Genius]

The difficulties of getting fan ownership going are absolutely immense.

However, for me, the question is this.  What is more unlikely:

1.  That a large bunch of Scousers and other fans can find the imagination needed to make this thing work

2.  That a non-fan owner will come along and treat the club the way it deserves to be treated


No matter how unlikely it is that SLFC will come up with the goods, the odds of that happening are much better than the odds of an outsider being a decent owner.

I wholly agree with the sentiment of your post, however the reality of fan ownership in real terms now or in the immediate future is entirely unrealistic, because there is no realistic business model to buy into. £5k is TOO much for the average fan.

The 'ideal' maybe to achieve this, and many would agree with the philosophy, the reality is there are not sufficient people to put up at least £5k per person, which stops the discussion in its footsteps.

To generate real belief targets need to be met, to achieve real targets the requirement of massive benefactors are required, that would in turn create a belief and 'snow ball' effect that the idea could be delivered. At this point in time, there is no belief it can be achieved.

[GoldenAgger]

Personally i never can see this happening, just over 5k fans have been prepared to pay £10 for SOS membership. Irrespective of whether you buy into SOS or Share Liverpool, its a numbers game... we would require an enormous amount of support to achieve these goals.

As stated before it is not the ten quid that is keeping people from joining SOS.

I'm a member of SOS so do not try to get all chippy with me about what I'm about to say.

Is it possible that people do not believe in SOS, their approach, their tactics, etc. SLFC has obviously received enough interest that they would continue to pursue their goals.  Personally I have friends who are born reds who have no interest whatsoever in SOS who are completely turned off by the Union and have questioned my membership many times.  But they are very much behind SLFC.  The Union isn't for everyone and neither will SLFC be.

[S24 LFC]

The idea that we need to encourage rich fans to donate, is a bad one. People are rich because they love their money, and nobody is gona give £5million away for no return. People will buy £5million worth of shares, but not if they cant sell them on.

We're trying to run before we can walk. We want the club off the yanks, and we want it so no one person can own it in future. How about one step at a time, get the club off the yanks, even if it means etting one person to invest 50m and 20 people to invest 10m, even down to fans buying 1 share, whatever the price may be. IF, and its a big if, but if we could get that done, then, and only then should we be looking at other ideas for the long term future of the club.

[Alan_X]

I think we need to be brainstorming ideas to make this work. 

How about we keep the idea of one person, one share.  But give different voting rights to the shares.

Let's say:

£1000 - 1 vote
£5000 - 7 vote
£20,000  -  35 votes
£50,000 -   100 votes
£100,000  - 250 votes
£1,000,000  - 3000 votes

So people can invest the amount they see fit, and be rewarded in votes.  But no-one can get lots of shares and get a controlling interest.

that's bizarre. Why weight the voting in favour of the wealthiest? In that model 100 owners of 1m shares would have 300,000 votes but 100,000 owners
of 1k shares, investing the same total amount would have 100,000 votes.

I can see how it might encourage more wealthy investors to commit at the outset but it's just storing up problems for the future. 

[Niru Red4ever]

that's bizarre. Why weight the voting in favour of the wealthiest? In that model 100 owners of 1m shares would have 300,000 votes but 100,000 owners
of 1k shares, investing the same total amount would have 100,000 votes.

I can see how it might encourage more wealthy investors to commit at the outset but it's just storing up problems for the future.

The last SLFC idea was actually good on this font, IMO. You pay 500p for a share (I don't think anyone would want a return on this amount ). Anything more, you will get a return on it. Of course, as mentioned earlier, its a numbers game; and we don't know if there will be enough fans willing to buy the club.

The Red Knight is actually quite nice. In our case we can have a similar model where initial 50mp is raised by wealthy individuals. Whenever other fans pay up 500 bucks, the exposure of the wealthy individual is reduced. Of course, there should be better workable models available.

I don't think SOS membership should be confused with people signing up to buy the club. I, for one, is not an SOS member (not because I don't like it; but for a student from a third world country, 10 pounds is a significant amount; especially since its only for a year). However, if there was an option to spend 500pounds for long term benefit of the club, I am quite willing to beg/borrow/steal (take up some part time/ online coaching or something) to raise the amount. I am sure there are a lot of people out there who would be willing to spend 500pounds to secure the long term well being of the club.

[jwilgar]

I think we need to be brainstorming ideas to make this work. 

How about we keep the idea of one person, one share.  But give different voting rights to the shares.

Let's say:

£1000 - 1 vote
£5000 - 7 vote
£20,000  -  35 votes
£50,000 -   100 votes
£100,000  - 250 votes
£1,000,000  - 3000 votes

So people can invest the amount they see fit, and be rewarded in votes.  But no-one can get lots of shares and get a controlling interest.

I see where you are coming from but someone or a group with lots of votes could take control by voting to change the constitution for example.  What you are suggesting also has flaws I think.

[Alan_X]

Guys, SLFC tried, and failed, to get 100,000 people to pledge £5000. 

I think that £250m would be a better target.  But, AFAIK, there is not much evidence that there will be 50,000 people willing to do £5000 or 100,000 willing to do £2500.  If people want to provide seed money, to get a blitz advertising campaign going to find lots of people willing to put in an equal amount, then that's fine by me.  It will have my full backing - just like all their proposals so far have had.

But it seems likely that the only way we can reach our target is if we have some people putting in a lot more than £5000.  And SLFC's surveys have shown that respondents would like the opportunity to exist for people to have an entry level much less than £5000.

Yes, I can obviously do the arithmetic and see that 100 owners of 1m shares would have 300,000 votes.  However, they would also be providing £100m.  That would be fine by me in both practice and theory if it actually happened.

HOWEVER, my assumption is that there definitely will not be 100 people who put n £1m.  Id love it if there was.  But I think 10 or so is more realistic, so 30,000 votes.  Nor is there any reason to assume that this will be a block vote, whereas 30,000 minimum amount investors would be a block vote in the other direction.

Besides, even if there was that sharp divide, hopefully there'd be at least 10,000 £5000 investors who would have 70,000 votes to fight over.

The real issue - for me - is how do we fans raise the money.  And how do we do it in such a way that just one (or 2 or 3) people do not have overall control, and in such a way that we can't be sold to some billionaire in the future.  Thus my suggestion was designed to encourage people to offer as much as they can afford, and to reward them for that.  In no way am I wedded to the idea, if someone has a better one.

So basically what are people saying.  Are they saying that we should all completely forget about fan ownership because it is a bad idea in principle?  In which case, I respect your opinion, but disagree with it.

Or are they saying that it is OK in theory, but they havent yet seen a model that they think will raise the necessary money.  If so, then you're obviously right.  Neither SLFC nor SOS has raised the money yet.  So how about making some positve suggestions.  What do we have to lose by trying to come up with a formula?  Some people have knocked Rogan Taylor, and, in truth, he hasnt delivered that much to date.  But at least the bloke is giving it a go, and has got all the legal stuff sorted out.  He's done a lot more to try to get LFC in decent hands than his own detractors.

I would love to see fan ownership but the figures just don't stack up. I've posted the maths plenty of times and they don't go away.

I have slagged Rogan off because whatever good work he did in getting things moving, he pissed it all away with the shambolic launch and pie-in-the-sky arse-about-face arithmetic that pretty much killed the idea at birth.

[redrockydennis]

Guys, SLFC tried, and failed, to get 100,000 people to pledge £5000. 

i tried to pledge £5000 and never heard a dickie bird back

[No666]

I would love to see fan ownership but the figures just don't stack up. I've posted the maths plenty of times and they don't go away.

I have slagged Rogan off because whatever good work he did in getting things moving, he pissed it all away with the shambolic launch and pie-in-the-sky arse-about-face arithmetic that pretty much killed the idea at birth.

Indeed. I felt SL would have gained some momentum if he had stepped down last year and the whole scheme had been relaunched, but he continues to muddle along, applying patches to gaping holes in its plans and whistling cheerfully.

[xerxes1]

The practicalities are these ( and I shall abbreviate any fan ownership model as SL).

The chances of SL buying the club outside of Administration are virtually nil. In order to negotiate with G&H, SL would need the money in their pocket to deliver on a contract. There is no evidence that this would happen. Equally there is no reason why G&H would agree to a binding commitment to sell at a figure, whilst SL then tried to raise the funds.

If the Club were in Administration, SL would need to be able to have the money to hand to beat all –comers, again the chances of that happening are virtually nil. Buying a business like Liverpool is a huge undertaking. In order to be successful not only does a winning pot have to be generated, but a team of professionals needs to be appointed and paid to execute the bid. That is likely to be a six figure sum. How happy, in practise, would ordinary fans be to have their money risked?

Buying the Club is just the first stage. Then the Club has to be financed ongoing. In practise this means Directors Loans and third party investment, for which there is a price. Discussion of the voting rights on shares is a bit if an illusion. Voting on what? It couldn’t be a Communist collective. More likely a Barca style vote on a President and /or Board – who will almost certainly need to secure outside investment and the control that the fans think they have, isn’t.

Some may remember that a few years back Bournemouth fans bought the club – and then had to sell it because they found that they were unable to act and compete commercially. It is true that the Barca model works, but that has evolved organically over decades. It is not an instant fix for us.

The solution? To do a deal with a bidder where they offer us a part share in the club as a purely commercial transaction. They buy the club for say £300m, and offer us up to 25% for £75m. In return, SL get a seat on the Board. How Dividends are dealt with is a matter for SL, they could be ploughed back into the club , they could be used to buy more shares, they could be used to reward shareholders, or be simply waived, whatever SL decided collectively. SL continue to own the 25% stake which could only be sold en bloc by an agreed mechanism. But  individuals within SL could sell their “share” because the new shareholder is buying a stake in SL which has a stake in LFC. They are not buying a share of LFC itself.

The advantages of this are considerable. Crucially it overcomes the problem of not having the money up front. Furthermore, if monies raised are less than expected, the proportionate stake in the club is reduced, although it would be reasonable for the owners to set a trigger point for a place on the board. The voting rights within SL is simple too. Every £100 you put in buys you one vote, the more multiples of £100 you put in, the more votes you have.

I passionately support the principle of fan ownership. In practise, I worry that the number of fans prepared to stump up cash is grossly over estimated, and the perceived benefits to fans of so doing is also overplayed. But if you want a workable, if imperfect model, there it is.

[Stretch Armstrong]

I honestly do not believe that people have £500 to spare mines £5k

[red_til_i_die]

I think the only way fan ownership would work would be to try and buy a smaller stake in the club to start with so that we can get a member on the board.

That person would have to be elected from the fans putting themselves forward for that position. Then if that system is working then we look at generating cash to buy more and more shares in the club to get more and more members on the board to represent the fans going through the same election process maybe every two years so that the fan on the board can't morph into a fat cat by getting used to there lofty perch.

In the initial stages i think that we have to find an owner who is prepared to allow the fans to have a say at the table via there representative by letting them investing x amount for x amount of shares.

That's the only way i can see it happening but in time we would be able to chip away at the shares available for seats on the board until we controlled upto the 30% of thye club and then we'd have to evaluate how to raise the funds to stage the buy out.

It would take alot of years to get to that stage but that's the only way i can see the slightest possability of fan ownership working.

One of the main problems if we did manage to get a fan on the board would be about the movement of information being leaked from that fan regarding any board meetings and things happening at the club. I don't know how we'd get around that obstacle.

I like the idea of fans being able to make donations to the club though that's a good idea. Course that money would have to be put at the disposal of the member on the board that was elected to use rather than the owners e.g. G&H stealing it all out of the club for themselves.

It seems like a pipe dream but i'm sure smarter people than me could get it to work.

[Alan_X]

The practicalities are these ( and I shall abbreviate any fan ownership model as SL)...

<snip>

...I passionately support the principle of fan ownership. In practise, I worry that the number of fans prepared to stump up cash is grossly over estimated, and the perceived benefits to fans of so doing is also overplayed. But if you want a workable, if imperfect model, there it is.

Pretty much spot on. I'd advocate setting up fund-raising for a fighting fund to finance the following items:

1. Some basic market research. Where all of these schemes fall down is the complete lack of any real idea of the numbers and level of commitment for this kind of idea.

2. Lobbying Government. Germany introduced fan ownership as a legal requirement. The Premier League will do nothing as it is an owners club, not an organising body.

3. Paying for some professional leadership/organisation. If you want professional people to take you seriously you need to be seen as professional and committed.

[Strummer77]

After we've finally got enough money to buy the club, where we going to get the transfer and new stadium funds from? Doesn't stack up to me.

[Liverbird 2010]

Although I dont believe fan ownership would work, I think if we had a new owner we should buy the new stadium or atleast pay for half of it instead of borrowing another shed load of money to build it.

[GoldenAgger]

Best part is all of you talking about SL and making these statements about it's failure yet they still feel confident enough to move on with their plan and are doing that. Maybe they've recieved more pledges than you think.

[Dave_the_Red]

Although I dont believe fan ownership would work, I think if we had a new owner we should buy the new stadium or atleast pay for half of it instead of borrowing another shed load of money to build it.

I  like that idea. it would really take the presure off if you could as supporters raise a few million

[Kite]

The only way this could possibly work is for a major international bank to take a massive risk and buy the club.  Say for instance HSBC came and bought Liverpool.

They then setup in many of their international countries a fan share ownership finance package.  For example.  Joe Bloggs who lives in Chicago USofA can buy a £5000 share with cash if he has it.  Or he can go through a credit check and finance his £5000 share over a 12,24,36 months.

HSBC do this globally.  Until they have sold a controlling interest to the fans with all fans having a vote that own a share.  Obviously if your loaded and buy £50,000 you have ten shares. 

Now whats in this for HSBC.  Well they couple all their other products with the liverpool share holders, current accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, credit cards.  Think of the loyalty HSBC would gain if they had a million liverpool shareholders all banking with them, especially after they come in and save our club from those parasite.

Imagine the loyalty they'd get from every other liverpool fan who wasn't a shareholder.

Perhaps I'm being extremely naive or stupid.  But wouldn't this work ?

[Niru Red4ever]

After we've finally got enough money to buy the club, where we going to get the transfer and new stadium funds from? Doesn't stack up to me.

If there are no massive debts to service, we will make a decent enough profit to fund transfers - and thats the way it should be. As for the stadium; it will be on borrowed money anyway which will be paid off by the extra evenue generated.

And sugar daddies are not exactly lining up to buy the club, are they?

[lfctitch]

The only way this could possibly work is for a major international bank to take a massive risk and buy the club.  Say for instance HSBC came and bought Liverpool.

They then setup in many of their international countries a fan share ownership finance package.  For example.  Joe Bloggs who lives in Chicago USofA can buy a £5000 share with cash if he has it.  Or he can go through a credit check and finance his £5000 share over a 12,24,36 months.

HSBC do this globally.  Until they have sold a controlling interest to the fans with all fans having a vote that own a share.  Obviously if your loaded and buy £50,000 you have ten shares. 

Now whats in this for HSBC.  Well they couple all their other products with the liverpool share holders, current accounts, savings accounts, mortgages, credit cards.  Think of the loyalty HSBC would gain if they had a million liverpool shareholders all banking with them, especially after they come in and save our club from those parasite.

Imagine the loyalty they'd get from every other liverpool fan who wasn't a shareholder.

Perhaps I'm being extremely naive or stupid.  But wouldn't this work ?

Whose to say we'd all move our bank account to them? And mortgages to them? They can't guarantee are business

[Something Else]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEEbbXtmI30&NR=1

to think what has happened since

[Strummer77]

If there are no massive debts to service, we will make a decent enough profit to fund transfers - and thats the way it should be. As for the stadium; it will be on borrowed money anyway which will be paid off by the extra evenue generated.

And sugar daddies are not exactly lining up to buy the club, are they?

Can't see it working. Love it to but really can't.

[Fowlers left boot]

For anyone interested in finding out more about fan ownership in football clubs - Supporters Direct (who have been working with Share Liverpool - along with many other clubs re fan ownership) are having their annual conference next month in London.

It's aimed at normal footie fans like us, to give us an understanding of how Supporters Trusts can obtain a say in the running of their club.

Check out the website:  http://www.supporters-direct.org/home.asp?reg=engwal

[xerxes1]

The only way this could possibly work is for a major international bank to take a massive risk and buy the club.  Say for instance HSBC came and bought Liverpool.
Perhaps I'm being extremely naive or stupid.  But wouldn't this work ?

No.  Banks lend money to clubs, they don't buy them.

[royhendo]

Get on to the "getting angry" thread.

---> http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=257639.0 <---

[jwilgar]

No.  Banks lend money to clubs, they don't buy them.

RBS might end up owning us !

[lakes]

sort of it bought by CB Holding, which is majority owned by Icelandic Investment Bank Straumur-Burdaras.

[harleydanger]

i can't understand why ShareLiverpool doesn't raise the funds for the Stadium. They can get a concrete price on how much the thing will actually cost, so more easily give "investors" the best price. Lease the thing back to the football club, Make $$$, buy actual club with the profits.

Surely this makes more sense, and is actually achievable?

[xerxes1]

i can't understand why ShareLiverpool doesn't raise the funds for the Stadium. They can get a concrete price on how much the thing will actually cost, so more easily give "investors" the best price. Lease the thing back to the football club, Make $$$, buy actual club with the profits.Surely this makes more sense, and is actually achievable?

There are quite a few reasons. Firstly G&H now may not wish to buy a new stadium off SL, nor may a new buyer.  Secondly if the club raise money it will be borrowed money, if SL raise money it will be £300m+ of hard cash, the biggest ever public subscription project in this country.To describe that as achievable is a bold statement.

[xerxes1]

People can slag off Taylor as much as they want.  But when G&H are gone, and our new owners are barely any better (if at all), at least he'll be able to look at himself in the mirror and know that he gave it his best shot.  He tried to find a way to get the best possible owner for LFC.
From Day 1, it has always been made clear that the SLFC model is not about fans voting on every issue as it comes up.  The club would be run by experts with delegated powers:  just like the Barcelonas & Madrids.  For that matter, just like General Electrics & BPs.If anyone thinks that they can do a better job of getting fan ownership off the ground, then no-one's stopping them.  There's no copyright on the idea.  Anyone can start their own scheme and make it as clever and credible as they like. You'll certainly have my pledge.Having said that, the SLFC model is a democratic one.  So perhaps there's no need to start an alternative scheme.  Just get involved with SLFC, and give it whatever help you can:  cash,expertise, whatever.This club is dying before our eyes, and there is quite probably nothing we can do to save it. But if there is even a 10% chance that we can get SLFC up and running, that has to be worth trying. Isnt it?

It is true that Taylor is “having a go”. That is a good thing. The frustration of his critics is his unpreparedness to do or die, and that therefore that he is grandstanding.

The Barcelona/ BP comparison is not a fair one. The latter is a simple commercial model of shareholders with votes proportionate to their shareholding, the former is a member’s club.
 
The SL model may be democratic, but whether it is commercial is another matter. Just because it is democratic is no reason for it to be successful.
The opportunity to launch and raise a fan’s ownership scheme has been around for at least a year. It hasn’t happened. The suspicion is that Rogan, whose fan status is undisputed, realises that the chances of failure are high and would rather wrap himself in the flag of the idea, than unfurl it, lead the charge, and fail. A 10% chance of success is overstating the prospects in my view.

SL, as it is, has little popular support, either because the model it proposes is unpopular, or unworkable, or both. It is significant that two large English clubs have fallen far further than us in recent years, Leeds and Newcastle- and the fans just took it. I see no evidence that things will be different here.

[the jesus]

It is significant that two large English clubs have fallen far further than us in recent years, Leeds and Newcastle- and the fans just took it. I see no evidence that things will be different here.

That is a very worrying scentence, mainly because it is hard to disagree with.

[incredibleL4ever]

I think the only way SL will be successful is if there is a willingness on behalf of whoever the owner is to facilitate a fans shareholding.  It is also something that is more likely to be built up over a long period - 10 years maybe - rather than in one step.

[Graham Smith]

At the end of the day the success of the attempt will depend upon the number of fans who write a cheque and the sums raised and lodged in an account.

What are views about what would be considered success?

10% of the purchase price? Anything less is a failure and anything more sees it kicking on maybe?

[Fanxxxxtastic]

I don't know how this will effect things I was just reading the full coalition programme.

And one of the new policies is.

We will encourage the reform of football
governance rules to support the co-operative
ownership of football clubs by supporters

[Graham Smith]

I don't know how this will effect things I was just reading the full coalition programme.

And one of the new policies is.

We will encourage the reform of football
governance rules to support the co-operative
ownership of football clubs by supporters

I just can't see any legislation having any real bite or even getting through.

There'll be massive challenges against it from the Clubs and Premier League.